Blog
Explore news, articles, outcomes, and legal resources by category or practice area.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
deselect
No items found...
News
Partner Chris Jones was recently elected to the Louisiana State Bar Association Board of Governors for the Fifth Board District.
Partner Chris Jones was recently elected to the Louisiana State Bar Association Board of Governors for the Fifth Board District. He will serve a three- year term on the Board.
No items found.
No items found.
Insight
Claims for Indemnity and Defense Brought Prior to a Liability Determination Are No Longer Premature
The Louisiana Supreme Court recently held that a claim for defense and indemnity may be asserted before a judicial finding of liability. The Court’s decision overruled prior decisions that held claims for defense and indemnity were premature until it was determined that damages were actually owed and the party claiming indemnity sustained a loss.
In Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, the plaintiff alleged he was injured when he drove over a downed power line that belonged to Cox Communications. Evidence showed Cox Communications contracted with Cable Man to provide services, maintenance, and repair for its telecommunication companies. The contract covered maintenance and repair of the subject phone line.
The contract included an indemnification provision that required Cable Man to indemnify and defend Cox Communications from any and all claims relating to Cable Man’s work, Pursuant to the contract, Cox Communications sent Cable Man a request to tender defense and indemnification under the contract. Cable Man refused the tender and Cox Communications filed a cross-claim against Cable Man asserting that it was owed defense and indemnification. In response, Cable Man filed an Exception of Prematurity and maintained that the claim for indemnity had not accrued because there had not been a judgment or a finding a Cable Man’s fault or liability.
The Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Exception of Prematurity and stated that “It is well-established that claims for indemnity, as well as claims for defense arising under an indemnity agreement, are premature prior to a determination that damages are actually owed and the indemnitee sustains a loss.” The court reasoned that the lawsuit was still pending against both parties and no liability determination had been made. Therefore, under the “well-established” law, Cable Man owed no obligation to Cox Communications for indemnity and costs at the time Cox asserted its cross-claim.
However, the Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit’s decision and Cable Man’s claims of prematurity were denied. Acknowledging such claims for indemnification previously were considered premature, the Court held the law moving forward should allow for a claim for indemnity, whether in a third-party demand or a cross-claim, that is raised during the course of litigation and before a finding of liability. Further, the Court recognized potential inconsistencies with prior judicial determinations and stated, “in light of our ruling today, to the extent any prior jurisprudence can be interpreted otherwise, we now clarify that such a claim for indemnity is not prohibited before a liability adjudication.”
This ruling makes clear that “asserting a claim for indemnity, arising out of the same facts and circumstances, is not premature before a judicial finding of liability.” The right to collect on an indemnity agreement continues to be determined upon a finding of liability or loss, but a claim for indemnity can now be asserted in the same proceeding.
References:
Daniel Bennett v. Demco Energy Services, et al, 2023-CC-01358 (La. 5/10/24); 386 So.3d 270.
Contracts
Duty to Defend
Indemnity
Louisiana Supreme Court
Insight
Louisiana Legislature Enacts Changes to Bad Faith Statutes
The Louisiana Legislature recently enacted Act 3, which reflects an effort to address the handling of insurance claims in Louisiana – particularly for catastrophic losses – and define ambiguities in the law. This blog addresses changes to Louisiana’s “bad faith” statutes. Broadly, Act 3 amends and enacts new sections of La. R.S. 22:1892, repeals La. R.S. 22:1973, and enacts La. R.S. 1892.2 to address situations involving catastrophic losses.
Prior Louisiana Bad Faith Statutes – La. R.S. 22:1892 and La. R.S. 22:1973
Previously, La. R.S. 22:1892(A) stated an insurer must:
- Issue payment to an insured within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss;
- Pay the amount of a bona fide third-party’s property damage or reasonable medical expenses within 30 days of a written settlement agreement;
- Initiate loss adjustment within 14 days of notice of a non-catastrophic loss or within 30 days of receipt of notice of a catastrophic loss;
- Make a written offer to settle property damage within 30 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.
If an insurer did not follow the requirements of La. R.S. 22:1892(A), the insurer could be required to pay the insured the amount owed under the policy plus a penalty if the insured established that the insurer’s conduct was “arbitrary, capricious and without probable cause.” Courts defined this standard as “vexatious” and without justification. The penalty is calculated as either 50% of the amount owed under the policy or 50% of the difference between the amount owed and a partial tender made by the insurer, if any. Additionally, if the insured established entitlement to the penalty, the insured could also recover attorneys’ fees and costs from the insurer.
Former La. R.S. 22:1973 codified an insurer’s duty of good faith and fair dealing. It set an affirmative duty to adjust claims fairly and promptly and make reasonable efforts to settle claims with the insured, a claimant or both. This general duty of good faith and fair dealing applies only to insureds.^ The statute also outlined six prohibits acts that, if knowingly performed, constituted a violation of the statute. Five of these six prohibited acts applied to both insureds and third-party claimants.^*
If an insured proved a knowing violation of La. R.S. 22:1973, the insurer could be required to pay the amount owed under the policy, damages caused by the insurer’s violation of the statute and a penalty of up to 200% of the damages that the insured or claimant incurred as a result of the breach. Such damages were separate and distinct from the amounts owed under the policy but could extend to anything for which the insured could establish a causal link.˚̃
Revisions to La. R.S. 22:1892
The new revisions enact several important changes. While the text of the new statute should be considered when evaluating any pending or potential claims, a summary is provided here.
- Time Delays
Under amended and re-enacted La. R.S. 22:1892(A), insurers must generally adhere to the time delays and conduct outlined under the previous law. Under La. R.S. 22:1892.2, for catastrophic events at residential properties, an insurer’s payment is owed within 60 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss. For catastrophic losses at non-residential properties, the statute provides an insurer’s payment is owed within 90 days of receipt of satisfactory proof of loss.
Another exception exists when an insurer initiates loss adjustment before the 14-day or 30-day deadline. If this occurs, the insurer’s obligation to issue a written offer to settle is extended by the number of days the insurer initiates loss adjustment before the deadline.
- Reciprocal Duty of Good Faith
Under the new law, La. R.S. 22:1973 is repealed and the general duty of “good faith and fair dealing” owed by an insurer to its insured and the prohibited insurer conduct previously outlined in La. R.S. 22:1973 is now encompassed within §1892.
The new statute also provides that the insured, the claimant or the representative of the insured/claimant owes the duty of good faith and fair dealing. If an insured fails to comply with affirmative duties under the policy, misrepresents pertinent facts and coverages, submits an estimate that lacks a basis in the evidence or the policy, then the insured’s conduct may be considered in determining whether the insurer’s conduct warrants an award of penalties.
- Cure Period
For catastrophic losses, the new law states suits may only be brought if the insured first provides the insurer with “cure period notice.” This notice requires that the insured provide the insurer with written notice of the violation, a written formal demand and notice of the facts and circumstances of the dispute. After this notice, several options exist:
- The insurer can pay the demand in full (along with the insured’s actual expenses and attorney fees no greater than 20%) within 60 days of the notice and extinguish any further cause of action.
- The insurer can issue partial payment on the claim within 60 days of the notice and reduce the penalty owed, if any, by half.
- The insurer can request additional information, but this does not extend the insurer’s other deadlines.
- Revised Penalty Provisions
The amendments also modify the recoverable penalty. The statute specifies the calculation of the penalty based on the type of violation, the type of property and the type of loss event. Generally, the insured is no longer entitled to recover all damages sustained by a breach of the statute: now the claimant may only recover “proven economic damages.” Notably, the potential for a penalty of up to 200% of the damages sustained as a result of the breach no longer exists.
- Timing
The law also formalizes and codifies the prescriptive period for claims brought under La. R.S. 22:1892 or La. R.S. 22:1892.2 to two years.
References:
^Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 1995-2895 (La. 5/20/97) 694 So.2d 184.
* Team Contractors, L.L.C. v. Waypoint NOLA, L.L.C., 780 Fed.Appx. 132 (5th Cir. 2019).
˚Durio v. Horace Mann Ins. Co., 2011-0084 (La. 10/24/11) 74 So.3d 1159.
̃ Audubon Orthopedic and Sports Medicine, APMC v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 2009-0007 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/21/10) 38 So.3d 963.
Louisiana
Bad Faith
Insurance
News
Mary Anne Wolf joins the Louisiana Society of Professional Surveyors for a roundtable discussion of legal issues at their District 6 meeting.
Mary Anne Wolf is pleased to join the Louisiana Society of Professional Surveyors for a roundtable discussion of legal issues at their District 6 meeting on October 17, 2024.
No items found.
Insight
The Runaway Railroad Jury Verdict: A Cautionary Tale for Attorneys and Jury Members
A jury in the 16th Judicial District Court awarded a garbage truck driver $8,307,050.00 in damages related to a September 16, 2016 accident with a train. The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the First Circuit reversed the decision in Theopholia Thomas v. BNSF Railway Company– because the answers to the questions on the jury verdict form were inherently inconsistent.
A garbage truck driver (Thomas) sued BNSF, the company that maintained a railroad track in the Town of Baldwin. On September 16, 2016, Thomas turned too wide while crossing railroad tracks, and his left front tire dropped off wooden planks on the crossing. This caused his left front tire to become stuck between the tracks. Thomas immediately began reversing the truck, then pulled forward and began moving across the railroad tracks. At that time, a BNSF train was bearing down on the crossing, blaring its horn. Thomas accelerated but train struck the rear of his truck. Thomas was injured in the incident.
Thomas filed suit the merits in May of 2022, the jury was provided a verdict form with a series of questions to 1) assign fault between the BNSF and Thomas; 2) determine the proximate cause of the accident; and 3) state the amount of damages. The jury completed the form, and a judgment was rendered by the Court in favor of Thomas.
The jury found: 1) that Thomas was negligent; 2) but that Thomas’ negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident; 3) however, the jury then assigned Thomas 15% of the fault. BSNF challenged the judgment, claiming that the answers on the jury verdict form were inconsistent. If Thomas was at fault, but that fault was not a proximate cause of the accident, then how was he assigned a portion of the fault? Before a party can be assigned fault, the jury must find both that the party was negligent, and that party’s negligence is a proximate cause of the accident.
The court of appeal overturned the over $8 million verdict in favor of Thomas because it agreed that the jury verdict form answers were inconsistent. La. C.C.P. art. 1813(E) provides that when the answers on a jury verdict form are inconsistent with each other, then the court shall not direct the entry of judgment but may return the form to the jury for further consideration or may order a new trial. The appellate court found that the jury could not both: 1) find that Thomas’ negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident; and 2) assign 15% fault to Thomas. Therefore, the verdict was vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial.
The lawsuit will be tried again – to a different jury. Certainly a cautionary tale.
References:
Theopholia Thomas v. BNSF Railway Company, 2023 CA 1209 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/6/24).
Civil Procedure
Jury
Trial Procedure
Verdict
Construction
News
Six Keogh Cox lawyers were recognized in the 2025 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® .
We are pleased to announce that six Keogh Cox lawyers were recognized in the 2025 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America® .
Lawyers on The Best Lawyers in America® list are divided by geographic region and practice areas. They are reviewed by their peers based on professional expertise and undergo an authentication process to make sure they are in current practice and good standing.
No items found.
No items found.
Insight
Preparing for a Storm
Fortunately, the 2024 hurricane season has been relatively calm. We previously blogged about steps that can be taken after your property is damaged by a hurricane or other natural disaster. (Click here to access our prior blog). With a Tropical Storm, and potential Hurricane, threatening our coast, here are some steps to consider taking to prepare before a storm arrives in the event you must make a property insurance claim for damages after the storm:
- DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT – The best way to prove the condition of your property before damage is caused is to document it. Take pictures and videos of the interior and exterior of your home or business. Create an inventory of your contents. Narrate the video to provide better descriptions. If your property is damaged, this documentation will be used to verify its condition and make it easier for your insurer to adjust and pay your claim.
- INSPECT YOUR PROPERTY – As you are making your preparations, you may consider taking a walk around your property to notice any prior damage to your property. Identify any issues that could affect a potential insurance claim.
- KNOW YOUR INSURANCE COVERAGES – Make sure you are aware of the coverages that your insurance policy provides. The Declarations Page to your policy should provide much of this information – the coverage limits, types of coverage provided, deductible, etc. While your insurance agent likely maintains this for you, it is good practice to maintain and know this information, which lets you know what will or will not be covered.
- MITIGATE YOUR DAMAGES – You can take steps to prevent damage to your property during the storm. You can pick up items around the property that could become airborne and take whatever precautions you can to prevent damage to your property, particularly the exterior. If your property is damaged, you can make temporary repairs to prevent further damage until your insurance company can get to you (like placing a tarp on the roof).
Insurance
Louisiana
Property
No items found.
Insight
Court holds real estate agents representing sellers are not required to investigate the seller’s representations about the property.
In Casbon v. K.W.E.J., LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Realty, et al, the buyer of a home sued her real estate agent for the seller’s alleged misrepresentation of the home’s living area square footage. The facts of this case are unusual because the seller’s representation was based on a prior appraisal report, and accurately reflected the home’s square footage as stated in that report. Also, the buyer financed the purchase, and her lending institution appraised the home again, which resulted in a nearly identical living area square footage calculation.
The plaintiff sought to refinance about a year after buying the home. She used a different lending institution, which retained a different appraiser. The house included a sunroom which had been converted from a porch. The appraiser chose to classify the sunroom as something other than standard living area. As a result, the appraisal report stated the home’s living area square footage was several hundred square feet smaller than the prior appraisal reports, and the plaintiff was not approved for the refinance. The plaintiff sued her real estate agent on the ground that the agent failed to verify the living area square footage before plaintiff purchased the home.
The defendant agent filed summary judgment, arguing she did not owe the plaintiff a duty to investigate or confirm the home’s square footage. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, finding an issue of fact regarding the classification of the sunroom, specifically “whether it is living area or not living area.”
Reversing the Trial Court, the Court of Appeal granted summary judgment in favor of the real estate agent. The Court noted prior caselaw establishing that agents are not required to confirm square footage as represented by a property owner by measuring or otherwise researching the accuracy of the seller’s representation. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the issue here was how the sunroom was classified rather than how the room was measured. To the Court, this was a “distinction without a difference.”
The Court applied the standard rule that real estate agents only are required to disclose defects which are known or should be known to them. Additionally, the purchase agreement expressly put the obligation to verify the seller’s representation of living area on the buyer. Thus, the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.
Case reference: Casbon v. K.W.E.J, LLC, et al, 23-321 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/4/23), 375 So.3d 524.
Contracts
Property
Real Estate
Summary Judgment